3% 




Class f 3 "t 3 
Book . H 2^6 



SPEECH 

OE 

OF KENTUCKY, 

On the following amendment proposed by Mr. Taylor, of N. Y. 
to the Bill authorising the people of Missouri to form a Con- 
stitution : 
Section four, line twenty -five, after the w^ord " States," insert 
the following: " And shall ordain and establish, that there shall 
be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said state, 
otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party 
shall have been duly convicted : Provickd always^ That any 
person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is 
lawfully claimed in any other state, such fugitive may be law- 
fully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her 
labor or service, as aforesaid : And, provided, alss, That the 
said provision shall not be constnied to alter tlie condition or 
civil rights of any pei-son now held to service or labor in the said 
territory," 

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OE BEPRBSENTATIVES OP THE 
UNITED STATES, ¥EBRUABX 4, 1820. 



Mr. Chairman: I am under great obligations to the 
committee for indulging me in my request on yesterday 
evening, for the committee to rise, and give me the floor 
this morning. But, were I to consult the safety of the 
little reputation I have, I ought not, although pledged, 
to address you and this house lo-day, upon the present 
subject. I readily acknowledge^ that at this moment I 
feel the most thorough conviction of my own incapacity 
to do any thing like tolerable justice to the question now 
under consideration, or even to acquit myself with credit. 

The importance of the present subject renders it my 
indispensable duty to myself, to this house, my country, 
and posterity, however reluctant I may be, to assign those 
reasons which have occurred to me, and which compel 
me to vote against the amendment offered by the gentle- 
man from New York. There is one point, and I believe 
only one, in which there is an entire concurrence of 
opinion in this House and the Senate ; that is, the im- 
mense importance and magnitude of the present question 
now before us : important, not only on account of the 
1 



/^ V. 



57 J 



extraordinary excitement existing throughout the na 
tion, but also on account of the new constitutional doc- 
trine broached on the opposite side of the house. One 
portion of the United States bring forward and support 
this amendmeat, under the imposing names of humanity, 
sympathy, and religion ; at the same time uttering the 
bitterest curses against the odious and abominable prac- 
tice of retaining a part of the human family in bondage. 
I acknowledge there would be great propriety in repro- 
bating the practice upon this occasion, if we were the 
authors of it, or could get clear of it ; but it has been our 
misfortune to have it entailed upon us by that government 
under which we were colonized ; and, however elo- 
quently gentlemen may declaim upon the subject of uni- 
versal Uberty, it proves nothing upon the present ques- 
tion, although it may captivate and enlist all the finer 
feelings and sensibilities of the heart. But I fear, I 
greatly fear. Sir, that gentlemen are fighting under 
false colors — that they have not yet hoisted their true 
flag. As this contest is upon the great theatre of 
the world, in the presence of all the civilized nations of 
the earth, and as it is to be viewed by an impartial pos- 
terity, would it not be more magnanimous to haul down 
the colors on which are engraven humanity, morality, 
and reUglon, and in lieu thereof unfurl the genuine ban- 
ner, on which is written a contest for pohtical conse- 
quence and mastery ? 

On our side of the House, Sir, we ?re contending 
not for victory, but struggling for our political exist- 
ence. We have already surrendered to the non-slave- 
holding states all that region of the American em- 
pire between the great rivers Ohio and Mississippi ; and 
if you tear from us that immense country west of the 
Mississippi, we may at once surrender at discretion, 
crouch at the feet of our adversaries, and beg mercy of 
our proud and haughty victors. 

In the investigation of the present question, Mr. chair- 
man, the "Subject necessarily divides itself into three great 
and leading heads. First, has Congress the power, u«- 
der the constitution of the United States, to annex, as an 
irrevocable condition upon the admission of the people 
of the territory of Missouri into the Union as a sister state, 
that the state, when organized, shall prohibit the further 
introduction of slaves within her limits, and shall set free 
and emancipate the future increase of all those who may 
be holden in slavery at the time the state government is 
formed— for this is the clear import of the amendment ? 
Secondly, if by the constitution Congress have the power, 
can it exercise it, without violating the national faith, 
under the treaty of cession, by which that country was 



transferred from France to the United States ? Thirdly, 
if Congress have the power to impose the restriction, and 
in so doing- the national faith will not be broken, is it ex- 
pedient to adopt the present amendment ? In this in- 
vestigation it will be necessary, Sir, before I proceed 
to examine the subject in the order proposed, to estab- 
lish some preliminary facts and positions, and also to 
disentangle the question from a few difficulties and ob- 
structions thrown in the way by those who advocate the 
amendment. It is alleged by some, that the Declaration 
of Independence, as soon as it was adopted by the Con- 
gress of 1776, emancipated and manumitted all the slaves 
in the then United States. This is certainly a very late 
discovery, and the people of the North, heretofore so 
fruitful in inventions, as the patent office can well testify, 
may rightly claim to be the authors of it. I would be glad 
that gentlemen would point out what part of the Declar- 
ation of Independence they rely on. At that time was not 
slavery tolerated in a number of the states ? Whose re- 
presentatives were the members of Congress who framed 
and adopted that Declaration ? Were they not the re- 
presentatives, exclusively, of the then free population of 
the United States ? Who is meant in the Declaration by 
the expression of " We, therefore, the representatives 
of the United States of America, in general Congress as- 
sembled, appeahng to the Supreme Judge of the world 
for the rectitude of our intentions, do, mthe name and by 
the authority of the good people of these colonies" ? 
Must not every one answer, Sir, that none but the then 
free population was alluded to ? 

What are the efficient parts of the Declaration of In- 
dependence ? The answer is,those parts only which de- 
clare our dependence upon Great Britain to be at an end, 
and assume a stand and character of a sovereign people 
among the nations of the earth. The balance of the de- 
claration is nothing but a manifesto to the world, as- 
signing and setting forth the causes which led to, and 
brought about that mighty event. But, Sir, is it not 
strange indeed that the framers and adopters of that 
declaration, should have been ignorant of its import, 
because a number of them held slaves, some do so yet, 
and others did until their death? The adoption of our 
present constitution, in which slavery is expressly recog- 
nized, affords the most ample refutation of the doctrine 
upon that point advanced by the other side of the House. 
I beg gentlemen to beware of the dreadful consequen- 
ces which may follow from such doctrine : too preposter- 
ous, I agree, to obtain any votaries from an intelligent 
and dispassionate people ; but, yet, when addressed 
to the slaves, whose minds are unenlightened by such 



Jiigli and imposing' authority, their angry passions may 
be aroused, and they may precipitate themselves into the 
commission of enormous crimes towards their masters. — 
Such doctrine as this. Sir, is to the slave-holding- states, 
peculiarly alarming ; it shews the tenure by which 
they hold their slave property, should the non-slave- 
holding" states obtain a decided ascendancy in the Con- 
gress and councils of the nation. Mr. chairman, there 
has been a great deal said from the opposite side of the 
House, upon the score of precedent. They alledge, that 
conditions of some kind or other have been imposed up- 
on a number of the new states adopted into the Union 
since the constitution was formed, to wit : the states of 
Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alaba- 
ma ; and also the conditions imposed by Virginia on 
Kentucky, when the latter was permitted to go into a 
state. To this long list of precedents, a number of an- 
swers can be given, each and every one of them satisfac- 
tory. 

In the first place, all those states were willing to enter 
into the compact, or agreement, and no efforts were 
made to impose it upon them, and enforce it without their 
consent. Besides, as to a number of the states, the con- 
ditions did not go to take away any of the great rights 
of sovereignty and self-government. In the second place, 
the states which agreed to the conditions, having done it 
M'illingly, the attention of the nation was never directed 
tr> tiic q lestion of ti)e constitULionui power of Cong-ressto 
exact them. They were precedents, established without 
debate,withDutcontest;in the language ofthe law they pass- 
ed s?/6 sile?itio,?Lnd are entitled to no weight as authority. I 
would, however, remark to this House, that the compact 
between Virginia and Kentucky, under an opinion, I pre- 
sunie, that it was not out of the power of the legislature 
of Kentucky by law to violate and infract it, and to put it 
completely out of the reach of all legislation, it is made 
part of the constitution of Kentucky. I agree, that great 
deference and respect are to be paid to precedents, esta- 
blished with due deliberation upon matters of state pol- 
icy; for nothing is so desirable as uniformity and consisten- 
cy in the administration of government. But, I do now, 
asl ev.-r have done, enter my m.ost solemn protest against 
the following of precedents, either in the legislative or ju- 
dicial departments of government, which are gross and 
palpable violations of the constitution. Upon a constitu- 
tional question, what situation are we placed in when 
following precedents against the admonitions of con- 
science ? Precedents point one way— our judgment the 
other. Is there any choice left? no, none — no more than 
there is between perjury and innocence. Can precedent. 



I ask you, Sir, sanctify and hallow that which is a crime on 
earth of the deepest dye, and an abomination in the 
sight of our Father who presides in Heaven ? 

Under the head of preliminary facts and positions, let 
us inquire, Mr. chairman, what are the claims of the peo- 
ple and territory of Missouri, to be admitted into the U- 
nion as a member of this great political family ? Her ter- 
ritory is not unusually large : The dimensions of the 
proposed state are not greater, do not contain more 
square miles, than the states of Ohio, Indiana, and IlUnois. 
Her population is admitted by all to be upwards of sixty 
thousand. No state which has been admitted into this 
Union since the adoption of the constitution, had at the 
time of their admission a greater population; several of 
them had scarcely half the number. The constitution, 
when it says, « new states may be admitted by the Con- 
gress into this Union," is silent upon the subject of num- 
bers or boundary, but leaves that svibject to the sound dis- 
cretion of Congress. The manner in which that discre- 
tion has been exercised, has been so uniform and invaria- 
ble, that it amounts to a law. It is, Mr. chairman, a pro- 
clamation to the inhabitants of all the territories, that, 
whenever their numbers approach to iifty or sixty 
thousand, they shall be at liberty to burst from around 
them the bonds and chains of territorial servitude and 
vassalage, and assume and exercise the rights of self-gov- 
ernment — the unalienable rights of mankind. 

But, Sir, independent of the practice of this govern- 
ment in admitting other states into the Union, I say, 
upon principle, if Missouri were the first candidate 
that ever offered and asked for admission, we would be 
bound to do one of two things — either to receive her as a 
sister state, or permit her to setup an independent govern- 
ment for herself. Who in this House is prepared to deny 
and disclaim the principles upon which the American 
Revolution commenced, and in contending for which we 
established our independence ? Was it the amount of the 
duty imposed upon the tea ? I answer, no ; because, by 
reason of the drawback allowed in Great Britain upon its 
exportation to the then colonies, we could buy it cheap- 
er and pay the duty here, than we could purchase it be- 
fore. But the principle we contended for was this— that 
we, from our intelligence and population, were compe> 
tent for all the purposes of self government ; and that it 
was the unalienable birth-right of all men to be bound 
by no laws unless they participated in their enactment, 
and that any law made by the King and Parliament of 
Great Britain, in which we had no voice, no representa- 
tion, was not only not obligatory upon us, but absolutely, 
as it respected us, null and void. On the other side of the 
1# 



e 

ocean it was contended that the laws enacted by the Im- 
perial Parliament and their majesty, were binding upon u& 
in all cases whatsoever. The above was the point in is- 
sue between the parties. Our right to a se^t on this 
floor, our being assembled here on this day, proclaims 
the glorious result of the contest. But then, in those 
good times, Sir, it was the feelings and interest of 
the American people to contend and spill the best 
blood of the land, for first principles. Now, I am sorry 
to say, that one portion of these United States find it 
their interest to combat those very principles for which 
a number of their fathers gloriously perished. 

Mr. Chairman, the claims of Missouri to be admitted 
into tliis Union, do not rest here. She has additional 
and still stronger demands upon this House, to grant what 
she asks for, if such could exist, which are based upon 
the following clause in the treaty of cession between the 
United States and France, by which treaty Louisiana was 
transferred to this government. The part of the treaty I 
allude to, reads in these words : " That the inhabitants of 
the territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the 
United States, and admitted, as soon as possible, accord= 
ing to the principles of the federal constitution, to tbe 
enjoyment of all rights, advantages, and immunities of 
citizens of the United States, and in the mean time they 
shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment 
of their liberty, property, and the religion which they 
profess." 

By this clause, you and this House, Sir, will per- 
ceive that the faith of the nation is pledged to incorp©- 
rate and admit that territory into the Union of the Unit- 
ed States, according to the principles of the federal con- 
stitution, and the people of it when admitted, shall enjoy 
all the rights, advantages, and immunities of the citizens 
of the United States, and the admission to be as soon as 
possible ; thereby meaning as soon as their numbers 
would justify it. To the treaty, it is answered from the 
opposite side of the House, that the treaty-making power 
of this government cannot bind and compel Congress to 
admit new states into the Union. To this I answer, that 
although the treaty -making power cannot compel Con- 
gress to do any act, yet it can constitutionally stipulate 
ibr an act to be done by Congress ; and if not done, the 
national honor and faith will be violated; which no gen- 
tleman, proud of the high character of this nation, would 
desire ever to see. When a treaty is made, by which 
inhabited territory is ceded from one nation to another, 
who are the parties ? I answer, not only the contracting 
nations, but the people living on the territory which is 
bought an4 sold ; and the inhabitantSj by agreeing to th€ 



cession, for they cannot be transferred without their con- 
sent, (see Vattel, page 118-19,) have paid a valuable con- 
sideration for all stipulations in their favor ; and what is 
more, being" the weakest of the three parties, mag-nanimi- 
ty requires towards them at least a scrupulous fulfilment 
of all conditions in their favor. 

But, Sir, shall it be said at this day, that that treaty 
is not binding- on the nation ? Has not Congress rati- 
fied and confirmed it in innumerable instances ? Has 
not Congress advanced and paid the puichase money ? 
Has it not created a new state out of it, and laid the 
balance off into territories, surveyed the land, sold it, 
and received millions of the purchase money ? If all 
those acts do not amount to a ratification and confirrra- 
tion of the treaty on the part of Congress, 1 would be glad 
that gentlemen would point out what further act can be 
done to give it additional efl^cacy. 

From the foregoing remarks which I have made, 
Sir, these facts and positions are manifest : first, the 
Declaration of Independence cuts no figure in this 
question. Secondly, there is no respect to be paid, no 
weight to be attached to the precedents adduced by the 
gentlemen on the other side. On the part of Missouri, 
her numbers, the custom of this government in similar 
cases, and the treaty with France, all, all conjoin in en- 
forcing her claims to admission. But, Mr. Chairman, 
why have I labored thus much to establish the foregoing 
propositions, and to refute the preposterous doctrines 
above referred to, as advanced by my adversaries, when 
the very amendment itself, from the manner in which it 
is offered, seems to admit the claims of Missouri to be- 
come a sister state ? 

We now come fairly to this momentous question. Has 
Congress the right to exact from the people of Missouri 
a surrender of so much of their state sovereignty as is 
contemplated by the amendment now under considera- 
tion ? In the present debate, it is certainly greatly desir- 
able that we should enter into it with coolness and im- 
partiaUty, and neither side be inflamed by passions of any 
kind, except the love of country, and a desire to pro- 
mote her interest. But, alas ! that seems to be imprac- 
ticable. Behold, Sir, and see how our tables groan 
with the cumbrous mass of memorials and petitions, from 
town meetings, colonizing societies and emancipating 
clubs, together with resolutions from all the non-slave, 
holding states. This mode of operating upon this House 
is extremely unfriendly, and hostile to the enactment of 
good, wise and salutary laws. It prevents and destroys 
vn€ beneficial effects of a free interchange of sentiments 



upon great national subjects. I acknowledge that 
three of the slave -holding states have sent alsc to this 
House requests and instructions ; they were only intend- 
ed by way of cunteraction to the ponderous mass on the 
other side. I duly appreciate the motive that induced 
their being sent ; it was a display of effort in the good 
cause. But it was entirely unnecessary ; it was an act of 
supererogation, for we iiad been instructed before. Our 
instruciions come from higher authority ; they come 
from the convention of 1788. I hold them in my hand ; 
thev are known throughout the civihzed world by the 
name of the constitution of the United States. In pursu- 
ing the investigation of this subject, in the order I pro- 
posed, it will be necessary, Sir, in tiie first place, 
that we should have a clear and distinct view of the re- 
lative powers of the general and state governments. I 
take this proposition to be undeniable, that, were it not 
for the contract between the states, which is the constitu- 
tion of the United States, that the states would be com- 
pletely sovereign to all intents and purposes, and that ev- 
ery power and attribute incidental to, or connected witli, 
sovereignty, would belong to the states. The proposition 
is equally incontrovertible that, as the government of the 
United States possessed no sovereignty originally, or ev- 
en existence itself, and being composed entirely out of de- 
legated powers from the states, that it possesses none of 
the original attributes of sovereignty, and it can do noth- 
ing which it is not authorized to do by the con stitution 
either by an express grant of power, or by an implied 
grant as necessary to carry into effect some power alrea- 
dy given. If the two propositions above stated be cor- 
rect, and of the truth of which there can be no doubt, it 
follows as a consequence, independent of the amendment 
to the constitution, which reads in these words, " the 
powers not delegated to the United Ststes by the consti- 
tution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to 
the states respectively, or to the people;'* that Congress 
can do nothing which they are not authorized to do, and 
that the states can do every thing that is not delegated 
to Congress, or which they are not forbid to do. The 
above conclusions refute all the argument which we have 
heard about the omnipotence of Congress. Doctrines 
at all times dangerous, but extremely so now, on ac- 
count of their being so fashionable. In support, Sir, 
of the points I have endeavored to establish, I will read 
from 3 Dallas — in the case of the state against Cob- 
bett — part of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Penn- 
sylvania; also, to the same point, part of the opinion of 
^.he Court of Appeals of Virginia, in the case of Hunter- 



ftg-ainst Martin ; and also, the following^ passage from 
V^attel's laws of nations. 

[Mr. Hardin, alter reading the passages from the dif- 
ferent books above referred to, proceeded in his argu- 
ment as follows :] 

In pursuing this inquiry, Sir, we must pause for a 
moment, until we ascertain what kind of property a 
man has in his slave ? The answer to this question is not 
difficult, for none will pretend to deny but that his pro- 
perty is absokite and unqualified, as much so as to any 
property a man can possess, except the right to take 
from his slave his life ; and this right to slave property is 
unequivocally recognized by the constitution, first, in the 
clause which gives a representation in this House for 
three-fifths, and secondly, in that part which reads in 
these words — " no person held to service or labor in one 
state under the laws thereof, escaping" into another, shall, 
in consequence of any law or regulruioa therein, be dis- 
charged from such service or labor, but shall be deliver- 
ed up, on claim of the party to whom such service or la- 
bor may be due." Sir, having progressed thus far in 
the argument, I may safely say to my opponents, you 
allege that Congress has the power to impose the 
restriction : We deny it; and it being admitted upon 
all hands, and from all sides of the house, that if Congress 
have the power it mist exist in the constitution and no 
where e!se, I therefore call upon you, to lay your fing-- 
cr upon that part of the constitution which will sustain 
you in the high ground you assume. In answer to this 
call, which is made not by me alone, but other gentlemen 
also, we see on the other side of the house nearly as great 
confusi'»n and uproar as prevailed at the tower of Babel 
when the angel from heaven was sent down to disperse 
the people, and confoundtheir language. One takes one 
part of the constitution, another disclaims that and se- 
lects another i^art ; and no two seem to agree through- 
out. I will examine the several parts of the constitution 
relied upon by each of them. One gentleman has, by 
nightly lucubration, with infinite labor and research, found 
the following passage — " Congress shall have power to 
lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay 
the debts and provide for the common defence and ge- 
neral welfare of the United States," upon which he plac- 
es great rehance. He says, that Congress has the power 
given to provide for the general welfare, and in doing 
that, it can enact and pass any law that may tend to 
the permanence, durability, and glory of the general gov- 
ernment. Sir, according to that gentleman's construction 
of this clause, if Congress should take up an opinion 
that the state goyernments retarded the advance and 



10 

progress of the nation in its rapid and brilliant career of 
national prosperity, they could extinguish and annihilate 
them. This is a g"reat departure from the g-ood old de- 
mocratic doctrine of IfSS, which once distinguished the 
parties in the United States. I consider, Sir, that the 
gentleman has misunderstood that part of the constitu- 
tion altogether. That clause, or I am most egregious- 
ly mistaken, contains no delegation of power further 
than this : Congress shall have power to do what? — an- 
swer, to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. 
For what purpose ? I again ask : answer, to pay the debts, 
provide for the common defence and general welfare of 
the United States. To pay the debts, provide for the 
common defence and g'eneral welfare, is the objects to be 
attained, by giving Congress the power to lay and collect 
taxes, duties, imposts and excises; there is no delegation 
of power in that part of the constitution to be found, 
which speaks of providing for the common defence and 
general welfare of the nation. But, Mr. chairman, I am 
heartily tired with the continued and repeated claims of 
this General Welfare ; when he was a but a youth, we 
made him considerable presents from time to time, at 
the expence of state rights : when he grew to be a man, 
we provided him a handsome marriage portion by giving 
him a bank of thirty-five millions. He is a great favor- 
ite; for even the judiciary, who by law is to have no sym- 
pathies,has taken him under its especial care and safekeep- 
ing. It is time we should resist his claims, and stop him 
in his high career of universal dominion. In examining, 
sir, his pretensions, for he is like most of our Gejierdls 
in the commencement of the late war, only brave, formi- 
dable and dangerous on paper ; we have one consolation, 
that is, we incur no hazard in losing our ears. Some 
gentlemen from the opposite side, rely upon the follow- 
ing part of the constitution : — " To make all laws which 
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execu- 
tion the foregoing powers,and all other powers vested by 
this constitution in the government of the United States, 
or in any department or office thereof," as giving the pow- 
er to Congress. That clause is like the last one noticed 
by nre, it contains no delegation of power ; it neither 
adds to or diminishes the powers of Congress ; it was e- 
vidently introduced, first, to prevent those who were hos- 
tile to the general government from alledging that it had 
no powers incidental to those expressly granted, and 
which were necessary to be exercised to effectuate the 
objects for which the constitution was framed and adopt- 
ed. On the other hand, by using the word necessary, it 
was intended to restrict and prevent Congress from tak- 
ing too great a latitude iu its selection and adoption of 



u 

the means to carry into fall effect the powers already- 
granted. It seems evident to me, Sir, that I have 
given the plain meaning- and clear exposition of this last 
clause in the constitution. This doctrine, that Congress 
can enact any law which she may deem needful and ne- 
cessary forthe health and prosperity of the general gov- 
ernment, is a most dangerous one, and if persisted in, 
must lead to the complete consolidation of this govern- 
ment. All men in power are grasping after more, and, 
by every means In their reach, endeavoring to extend it, 
proclaiming to the world that power in their hands is 
harmless as it respects and regards the rights of their fel- 
low men. 

It is time, sir, that this plea of necessity for the 
extension of power, should be disregarded, and no 
longer allowed. I would ask you. Sir, and this house, 
to cast your eyes back upon the nations of the world, 
both ancient and modern, from the formation of the 
first government, under Nimrod, who was a mighty 
hu7tter, to the present day, and tell me, has not every 
encroachment upon the civil, pohtical, and rehgious 
rights of the people, been justified, or apologized for, 
under this same plea, necessity. The mmisters of Great 
Britain plead necessity for the present system of taxa- 
tion, which now bows down to the earth, with the hea- 
viest load of oppression, the people of that country. Bo- 
naparte plead necessity for his conscriptions : even the 
Sultan of Turkey, if he takes off the head of one of his 
subjects, pleads necessity. I do assure you, Sir, that 
civilly, morally, politically, and religiously, a greater ty- 
rant never existed than this same necessity. The ninth 
section of the first article, which reads in these words : 
« The migration or importation of such persons as any of 
the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall 
not be prohibited by the Congress, prior to the year 
1808 ; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such impor- 
tation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person" — has 
been reUed on by some gentlemen, as giving the power 
to impose the present restriction. The words, « such 
persons," in that clause, 1 agree, mean slaves, and that 
the word « migration" alludes to the same description 
of persons as the word « importation." The restriction 
upon the power of Congress not to impose a higher duty 
than ten dollars, proves incontestibly that slaves are in- 
tended by the expression, such persons. The fair con- 
truction of that part of the constitution is this, that the 
states had the right to import slaves, as an article of com- 
merce, and, when the constitution was made, the whole, 
or some of them at least, did not wish to abandon that 
trade, or to put it in the power of Congress to stop it. 



12 

until the expiration of twenty years ; because, without 
this clause, Congress, having the complete power over 
our commerce with foreign nations, could have prohibit- 
ed it at once : and, also, lest Congress might cut up the 
trade by duties too heavy to be borne, the tax or duty, 
which otherwise might have been extended indefinitely, 
is limited to ten dollars. But it is said, that migration can 
as well mean the carrying from one state to another, as 
bringing them from quarters of the world unconnected, 
and not belonging to the United States ; and, furthermore, 
there being no restriction upon the duty which Congress 
may lay upon the migration of such persons, proves that 
Congress, upon the migration thus intended, could not 
lay a duty, and that could not happen unless the word 
migration, as there used, intended the taking of the 
slaves from one quarter of the United States to another. 
To that course of reasoning the following answers can be 
given : that the word importation, as there used, is, to 
have its common acceptation, the bringing into our ports 
from foreign countries ; and the word migration is in- 
tended to mean the bringing them into the United States, 
not through the regular channels of our commerce, by 
entering them at the custom house, but in any and every 
other way by which they could be introduced into the 
United States. When they were regularly entered at 
our ports, it was necessary, when the right was intended 
to be secured to the states, to limit and restrict the pow- 
er of Congress in laying a duty ; but, if not entered re- 
gularly at port, there was little or no danger that Con- 
gress could, or would, injuriously operate upon the trade 
by custom-house duties. There is another expression in 
this clause, which gentlemen in their zeal seem to have 
overlooked ; a word which casts great light upon the 
meaning of the words "migration and importation of 
such persons as any of the states now existing shall think 
proper to admit :'* the word « admit," wliich applies 
equally to migration and importation, shews evidently 
that the persons there intended were not then in the 
United States; for, if they were, the word « admit'* could 
not be used in relation to persons in already. 

I have, Mr. chairman, occupied more of the time and 
attention of the house upon this part of the constitution 
than there was any necessity for. There is one answer 
to all the arguments drawn from that part of the censtitu- 
tion, perfectly conclusive : there is not one word in that 
clause which contains a delegation of power ; but it is, 
from beginning to end, a restriction and limitation upon 
power already granted. I would ask you and this house, 
if it be not a contradiction in terms, a perversion of the 
import of our language, to say, a limitation of power con- 



\ 



IS 

tains a grant of power ? That part of the constitution 
cannot, therefore, aid the gentlemen in sustaining the 
doctrines they advocate ; and, for all the service it will 
do them in this argument, it may as well be erased and 
blotted out of the constitution. This clause in the con- 
stitution has been greatly relied upon by the opposite 
side of the house ; it reads in these words : "To regu- 
late commerce with foreign nations, and among the sev- 
eral states, and with the Indian tribes.'* They say, that 
the power to regulate the commerce among the several 
states, will authorize this restriction. In construing this 
part of the above clause, it will be necessary to take into 
view the following clause : " No tax or duty shall be laid 
on articles exported from any state ; no preference shall 
be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to 
the ports of one state over those of another ; nor shall 
vessels bound to or from one state, be obliged to enter, 
clear, or pay duties in another.'* When we take both 
those parts of the constitution together, what do they a- 
mount to ? This, that Congress can lay no duty, impose 
no restriction, upon any article of trade or commerce, 
vt'hich is carried on from one state to another ; that Con- 
gress has no power to prevent me from taking any of my 
property from one state to another ; for how can it 
operate upon me, if it can neither lay a duty upon the 
goods or property carried, or lay a restriction or prohibi- 
tion either upon me or my property ? The intentidn of 
the convention, in inserting that clause, was, that the 
states should divest themselves of all power to embarrass 
and trammel each other's trade and commerce from one 
state to another. The convention was well aware of the 
great benefits to the whole American people by a free in- 
terchange of commodities between the several states. I 
would ask. Sir, how can it be pretended that the pre- 
sent amendment is a regulation of commerce between 
the states ? It cannot be a regulation of commerce, for 
it is not general; it is not applicable to the whole 
United States ; it is only to bind Missouri. It is not in tiie 
nature of an act to regulate commerce, subject to the fu- 
ture legislation of this house ; but it is irrevocable. My 
slaves are a pai't of my family : 1 do not carry thera ther'e 
for the purposes of commerce ; I take them there to 
serve me : I may be unwilling to part witli them, upon 
any terms. There are ties of affection frequently exist- 
ing between a master and his servants, and that may be 
an inducement to carry them to the place selected for 
liis future residence. Can it, I ask, sir, be pre- 
tended that, under the power to regulate commerce 
between the states, Congress can set the future increase 



14 

of my slaves free ? No one certainly has the hardihood 
to assert it. 

Having examined, sir, the different parts of the con- 
stitution under which this pretended power is derived by 
g-entlemen, I will now turn my attention to the only part 
of the constitution that gives the smallest semblance of 
plausibility to their side of the question. It is the first 
member of the third section of the fourth article, and 
reads in these words : " New states may be admitted by 
the Congress into this Union." It is under this part of the 
constitution that Missouri relies for admission into the 
Union. Those who are in favor of the amendment rely- 
also upon the same part of the constitution for the power 
to impose the restriction ; and I am fully persuaded that 
the strength of the argument on both sides, rests upon a 
fair exposition of this clause. On the opposite side of the 
house we are told that, from the word " may" being used, 
that Congress has a discretionary power either to admit 
or refuse ; and if Congress have the power to refuse alto- 
gether, it can admit upon conditions such as it may 
think proper to prescribe ; because, when a person has 
both the right to give and the right to refuse, that the 
right to refuse necessarily includes the power to give 
with any qualification the donor may choose to annex to 
the thing given. This argument, at first view, is impos- 
ing ; but, in truth and fact, nothing more false and erro- 
neous. I will concede to the gentlemen what they ask 
for, and they are indebted to my bounty for it, that Con- 
gress can refuse, as a matter of right, to admit Missouri ; 
yet the conclusions drawn from that right do not follow ; 
because, according to my construction of that clause, Con- 
gres must either refuse or admit, without any other or fur- 
ther qualification, and with no greater surrender of sove- 
reignty, than the original thirteen states which made that 
constitution, gave up to the government of the Union. I 
would ask, what is meant by the word Union ? Is it not 
the compact and agreement between the states, and 
which is called the constitution ? Is not that the bond of 
imion, the tie that binds and unites the states together ? 
If Congress make Missouri surrender any portion of her 
sovereignty that was not surrendered by the old states, 
how can she be a party to the original agreement be- 
tween the states? because, as to Missouri, if other sub- 
stantial articles be added to the great contract between 
the states, it necessarily follows then that she does not be- 
come a joint partner in the original agreement, and 
tlierefore, if she be compelled to part with any of her sove- 
reignty, retained by the states which made the constitu- 
vion, she is not a member of the Union. 

Sir, the gentlemen on the other side seem to have for- 



1$ 

gotten the import of the words " new states." What is 
the definition of the word slate, as there used? The 
word state, when applied to a corporate body, is synoni- 
mous with the word nation, in its popular acceptation, and 
also in all treatises upon the subject of national law. To 
support that position, I would refer the House to Vat- 
tel's law of nations, first page. Nation, or state, is the 
generic term for a great political association of people ; 
and the terms monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, 
are only specifications of the kind of government. The 
words " new states," as used in the constitution, are to 
have a qualified meaning ; what I would call and consider 
a constitutionally technical interpretation. The import 
of the word state, when used by the constitution, means 
a poUtical association of people, with just the same sove- 
reignty, and no more or less than is severally possessed 
by the thirteen old States. For, if you give it 
less of the great rights of self-government, it is neither 
a state in the common acceptation of the word, as de- 
fined by the laws of nations, or the constitutional mean- 
ing of the term. You may call it a territory, proWnce, 
colony, or any other kind of excrescent appendage to the 
general government, or you may term it a non-descript, 
but I protest against its being called a state. If the fore- 
going conclusions which I have drawn be correct, Mis- 
souri cannot be called upon to yield to the general gov- 
ernment any portion of sovereignty possessed by any 
other of the states, and what is more, if she surrender 
any part of it. Congress, which only acts as the agent 
of the states in this particular, cannot admit her ; for, 
from the time of such surrender, she ceases to be a state, 
and it is only new states Congress can admit. Nay, Mr. 
Chairman, I go further, and assert it without t]\e fear of 
contradiction, that even if Missouri should crouch at the 
feet of this government and become its humble tool, and 
permit it to dictate the constitution she should have, and 
upon th' se conditions ask to be admitted in'.o the Union, 
Congress, then, cannot admit her, because the other 
states are parties and co-partners in this great govern- 
mental compact, and none shall be admitted as new mem- 
bers of this pohtical community-, unless it has the same 
capital of the original states to put into the common 
stock, unless she shall have the same stake at hazard. 
In plain English, the same quantum of state sovereign- 
ty to balance and check the powers and encroachments 
of the general government, instead of becoming the de- 
pendent tool, the willing handmaid of its rap'd march 
and proud strides towards consolidation and univer- 
sal dominion. But, sir, if Congress can call upon 
Missouri for a surrender of any portion of her rights 



16 

which are retained by the other states, where is it to stop? 
to what lengths can it not go ? Congress may, in the 
next place, demand of her, or any other candidate, for 
admission, to yield the command of the state militia, to 
give up the independence of the judiciary ; nay, to 

surrender all the great rights of state government. 

There is yet another point of view in which the 
absurdity of the gentlemen's doctrine is still more 
manifest, the beauty in our government consists in 
the admirable exactness with which the powers of gov- 
ernment are divided into departments, and then state 
governments. This I consider the life and soul of this 
nation. The checks and balances created by this divi- 
sion and subdivision of power, forms the sheet anchor — 
it is the great palladium of the republic. Now, sir, if 
Congress can admit new states into this Union, and re- 
quire as a condition of admission by this unconstitutional, 
this unhallowed traffic and bargain-making a surrender 
to the general government of any of the powers possess- 
ed by the old states ; what, I ask, would be the conse- 
quence ? It would be this, that the elegant and inimita- 
ble architecture of this government w®uld be destroyed. 
Such a number of new states might be admitted by Con- 
gress under such terms and conditions as ultimately to 
destroy the checks upon the general government con- 
templated by the state sovereignties, and there would 
be no competent power remaining in the states to con- 
trol Congress in any measure it might adopt to the pre- 
judice of the rights oY the old states. This power, Mr. 
Chairman, could be directed to still more ruinous purpo- 
ses ; such a number of these non-descript states might 
be admitted as to repeal, abrogate, and destroy the con- 
stitution itself. It is alleged, as a further argument, and 
asked triumphantly too, if both Congress and the states 
cannot make a contract ; and if, say they. Congress and 
the states, both have the power to contract, these condi- 
tions are in the shape of a compact, and they can be en- 
tered into. To that I answer, that, as to the buying and 
selling of property, the above named parties can make an 
agreement, but as to the purchase and sale of state sove- 
reignty, one has no power to buy, and the other no pow- 
er to sell, and besides, as I have before observed, the 
other states are parties to the great national compact, and 
they have, in their general constitution, forbid this kind 
of bartering, or rather force work. Fully to support the 
above course of reasoning which I have pursued, there 
is still one oth«r proposition which I must prove; that the 
right to retain in slavery or manumit, as the states re- 
spectively may choose, their slaves, is reserved to the 
states exclusively. I would ask gentlemen, was not the 



17 

property ef individuals in their slaves recognized by the 
constitution? The answer must be in the affirmative. 
Has the power to regulate and govern the slave proper- 
ty been delegated by the original states to Congress ? 
The answer must be in the negative. If those two an- 
swers be correct, the consequence is, that the states still 
retain the right. But it is said that it is only a right to 
such of the states as then held slaves, and that it was not 
a general right. To that I answer, that, whether the states 
respectively hold slaves or not,depends exclusively upon 
their own regulations, and not upon any power in Con- 
gress. Slavery being tolerated in some states and abo- 
lished in others, proves nothing. It only displays state 
policy and volition on the subject. 

I would call the attention of the House, Mr Chairman, 
to the first member of the second section of the fourth 
article, which reads in these words: " the citizens of 
each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and im- 
munities of citizens in the several states." The part of 
the treaty which I have before referred to contains, in 
substance, the same declaration as it respects the inha- 
bitants of Louisiana ; for it says, that " they shall be in- 
corporated in the Union of the United States, and admit- 
ted, as soon as possible, according to the principles of 
the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all rights, 
advantages and immunities, of citizens of the United 
States." The rights here alluded to, are obviously rights 
resulting from civil institutions ; but it is contended that 
the rights referred to in the constitution and treaty are 
federal rights, and not rights which citizens enjoy under 
their respective state governments. Upon this point we 
agree. The only matter of difference consists in this — 
the rights which a citizen enjoys, that may be called fe- 
deral. They seem to confine themselves to those secured 
to the citizen under the consohdated aspect of the go- 
vernment ; I go further, and say, that citizens enjoy fe- 
deral rights under the federative aspect of the govern- 
ment. I am a citizen, sir, of the political corpo- 
ration, existing in the United States, known by the 
name of the State of Kentucky; as a corporation and 
state, she has certain state rights. I would ask, are not 
those rights secured to her, and are not the United 
States bound to guarantee the full enjoyment of them ? 
The answer must be in the affirmative. Then, sir, as a 
citizen of Kentucky, I have other rights that may be call- 
ed federal, besides those that I enjoy in the consohdated 
aspect of the government; and they are rights secured 
to me through the medium of the c®rporation,or state, to 
which I belong. If the above positions be correct, this 
follows as a necessary consequence — that, if you compel 
2 ^ 



18 

Missouri to relinquish any of the rights of self-g-oyern- 
raent enjoyed by the other states, her citizens will not 
enjoy the same privileg-es and immunities of citizens of 
the several states through their respective state govern- 
ments. 

This amendment under consideration, Mr. Chairman, 
as I said when I commenced this address, goes so far as 
to emancipate the future increase of the slaves already 
there. The constitution provides that my private pro- 
perty shall not be taken from me without my consent, 
unless I am paid for it. I would ask if I have not as 
great a right in the future increase of my slaves as I have 
to their woi'k prospectively ? I must be answered in the 
affirmative. And I would challenge gentlemen to point 
out to me the difFerenee, in substance, in taking from 
me my slave and in taking his work. They must admit 
there is none. 

The amendment proposed not only interdicts the fur- 
ther introduction of slaves into Missouri, but takes from 
the resident ihere, who owns slaves, part of the profits 
of his slave, without making him any compensation there- 
for. 

I hav« now, Mr. Chairman, gone through the two first 
great divisions of this subject, in the order I proposed 
to investigate them. Perhaps I have been somewhat too 
tedious, but I could not well say less. Sir, the manner 
in which this nation seems divided upon this subject 
convinces me of one thing that I have long suspected to 
be true, that our opinions, upon all that variety of sub- 
jects upon which we in the course of our lives are called 
upon to decide, are the result of affections and passions, 
and that judgment has no concern therein. Upon this 
occasion, we see this opinion fully illustrated; because 
men, distinguished both for integrity and talents, are to 
be found on each side ; and the line that divides the par- 
ties is a local one. But, sir, the unwillingness ma- 
nifested by the opposite side of the house to adjust 
and settle this dispute, and prevent an explosion that 
must shake the American world to its centre, induces 
me to believe that their judgments are warped by a pas- 
sion, in this case, which may be denominated an unsatia- 
ble thirst after power, an unwarrantable lust of domi- 
nation. 

We now, Mr. Chairman, come to the last question I 
proposed to discuss. It is this : If there be no impedi- 
ment to the powers of Congress from the constitution, 
and the national faith will not be violated by adopting 
the present amendment, does policy dictate the measure ? 
I do verily believe, that, instead of its being expedient 
to impose the proposed restriction upon the people of 



19 

Missouri, that it would be unwise and impoiitic, as it res- 
pects the nation ; it would be unjust as it relates to the 
slave holding' states ; it would be iniquitous towards those 
who have been invited to settle there, and purchase our 
land at a high price ; and a most aggravated and flagrant 
breach of public and national faith to those who lived 
there at the time of the ratification of the treaty between 
the United States and France. It has been said, that the 
prohibition of slavery west of the Mississippi is a neces*- 
sary measure to prevent the smuggling- ot slaves from 
Africa into the United States, because it opens an addi- 
tional, more enlarged and extended market for them. 
The difference in the price of slaves now between the 
United States and Africa, affords to those unprincipled 
men who may feel disposed to engage in that unhallowed 
traffic, the most alluring temptations. The price will 
not be enhanced by permitting" slavery west of the Mis- 
sissippi, or, at least, by allowing, for that is the question, 
the people of Missouri to determine for themselves whe- 
-ther they will tolerate slavery or not; because gentlemen 
must know that the value of slaves, and the demand for 
them, must and always will depend, until population be- 
comes so crowded that they cannocbe usefully employed, 
upon the price of those exports which are the products 
of our soil. Have we not seen within a few years past 
this fact fully illustrated in the fluctuation of the price of 
slaves. Nothing can stop the slave trade but the vigilance 
of that part of our navy which is employed to prevent it. 
If I am correctly informed, although the gentlemen from 
the North sicken at the idea of slavery being tolerated 
in Missouri, some of their brethren have had their mer- 
cantile cupidity aroused and put into action by the im- 
mense profits of this trade. Mr. Chairman, this crying 
sin, this traffic in human blood, the late smuggling of 
slaves, of which we have heard so much, do not rest 
solely upon us ; the land of sober habits must bear a large 
share of the guilt. 

It is furthermore alleged, that, by permitting slavery 
in that country, it will operate upon and diminish the ef- 
ficient force of the nation; that the people of the slave- 
holding states will be able to pay their proportions and 
contribute their contingents in money, but can add no- 
thing to the military strength of the nation. That asser- 
tion needs no refutation from me. The history of the 
country, from the earliest settlements, to the present 
day, proclaim that declaration false and groundless. I 
would appeal to the generosity and magnanimity of the 
people from the north, for an open and explicit contra- 
diction of that assertion. Let every battle in the late 
war testify to the contrary ; nay, more, when a haughty 



20 

and insulting enemy was in sight, they never had any 
constitutional scruples in crossing- their state line. How 
fortunate for the prosperity and integrity of these United 
States, would it be, had tlie north the same reverence for 
the constitution now, in the councils of the nation, that 
it had last war in the field of battle ; but perhaps the 
remark which I have been answering, when made, was 
not intended to call in question the bravery, patriotism, 
and courage of the people of the south and west, where 
slavery was tolerated, but only mtended to convey the 
id< a, that part of the white m'ale population was needed 
at home, in times of war, to keep down the spirit of re- 
bellion and insurrection in the slaves. Admit their posi- 
tion in that respect, to be coi'rect, what is the remedy 
which ought to be applied ? I answer and say, disperse 
and scatter them throughout the American continent as 
much as possible; render the disproportion between the 
white and black populatioM as great and obvious as prac- 
ticable; and that is the surest way of preventing the 
slaves from rising in arms; by these means jou present to 
them, in the most clear and striking point of view, their 
own weakness, their total incapacity to regain their li- 
berty. But, on the other hand, if we adopt an opposite 
course of policy, and confine the slaves to a few of the 
states, in those states, the blacks will become most nu- 
merous in all probabiUty. They have no education, no in- 
formation; they are incapable of taking a survey of the 
strength and resources of this nation, compared with 
their own ; they can only draw the comparison within the 
immediate circle of their respective neighborhoods. The 
consequence of this will be,that, impatient of restraint, re- 
peated abortive efforts will be made to regain their hber- 
ty, and each attempt of that kind will be marked and 
characterised first by murders, assassinations, massacres, 
and conflagrations ; and when this spirit of insurrection 
is quelled, numbers will be punished with exemplary 
vengeance, and the situation ©f the rest rendered more 
miserable. It ought not now to be forgotten, that we are 
not called upon to decide, whether slavery shall be admit- 
ted into the United States, or not ; we have them here, 
we cannot get clear of them ; to set them free, would be 
to become a prey to their lawless depredations. The 
countries they would infest would be rendered to us un- 
inhabitable. The immediate question now before us is, 
what is best to be done with them? Their further im- 
portation is already prohibited. From the facilities of 
our laws of naturalization, emigration is invited from eve- 
ry quarter of the world; the white population is gaining 
fast on the black ; nothing is to be apprehended, then, 
from them, if we do not pursue the policy of confining 



21 

them to a small part of the United States. Gentlemen 
say that the great object of their policy is the happiness 
& felicity of the slaves; the ameUoration of their wretch- 
ed condition; if that be their object, it is certainly lauda- 
ble, but it is unquestionably misdirected. 

Mr. Chairman, do we not know that the happiness and 
comforts of those in slavery depend upon a few being 
owned by one man ; for, when hundreds are thrown to- 
g-ether upon one place, under an owner who knows them 
not, who has no affection for them, miserable indeed is 
their condition ; but, on the other hand, when a few only 
belong to one man, he knows them, he loves them, he 
considers them a part of his family : some have been 
the companions of his youth ; others are raised by him, 
and are the play-mates of his children. There is, then, 
a mutual affection between the white and black part of 
that family. When in this situation, they are truly hap- 
py, so far at least as is consistent with slavery. They 
want nothing ; they are crossed by nothing. The last is a 
source of feUcity that we poor bimy politicians never 
know. We have heard from the other side of the House 
that the toleration of slavery west of the Mississippi will 
greatly add to their numbers, by a rapid increase. Have 
gentlemen who support this amendment, viewed this 
proposition in all its bearings, and seen how it will quad- 
rate with the principles of religion and humanity, under 
the specious garb of which they make their sly political 
advances to the attainment of power? I would ask them, 
how the population of slaves is to be retarded ? The 
dread of suffering by want, one of the causes which 
retard the free population, will never prevent them 
from the propagation of their species. The other means 
of effecting either a diminution of their numbers or of 
preventing an increase, is by withholding the necessa- 
ries of life, hard usage, and so crowding them together 
as to beget and engender maladies of one description or 
other. On the other hand, a rapid increase of their num- 
bers is a complete demonstration of their situations in 
life being comfortable. This course of pohcy of these 
humane gentlemen, to withhold all the comforts of life 
from the slaves, to prevent their increase, and in that 
way, out of pure love for them, to extinguish slavery al- 
together, is what I would call humanity with a vengeance. 
But it illustrates what I said I suspected in the first part 
of this address — the amelioration of the condition of the 
slaves— which was a captivating theme to the heart of the 
philanthropist and religionist, was only an empty barrel 
thrown out to the whale. 1 would ask those hon. gentle- 
men, if our country is so thickly settled at this time as to 
make it necessary to adopt any course of policy intend- 



2£ 

ed and calculated either to diminish or retard, by 
withholding- the comforts of life, the numbers of any 
part of the inhabitants of this land? Do they expect it 
will for centuri-es yet to come ? China, I believe, is the 
only spot upon the earth where the population is pres- 
sing- against the limits of subsistence, and where the ex- 
ecrable policy of infanticide has been sanctioned by g-ov- 
ernment. 

This amendment is fraught with the greatest injustice 
towards the people of Missouri. Those who lived there 
and had slaves, when that country was transferred to the 
United States, were told in the most solemn manner by 
the very terms of the treaty itself, that they were to be 
secured in the free enjoyment of their property ; and it 
was then well known to the contracting parties, that a 
great number of the inhabitants had slaves. To those 
who have moved there since, what has been thelanguag-e 
of this government to them ? It was, that slavery should 
be tolerated there, because Confess, in the territorial 
administration of the government of that country, did not 
prohibit it. Under the persuasion that that description 
of property was and would continue to be well secured 
to the rightful proprietors, numbers have been induced to 
move from all the slave holding states, to that country, 
and carry their negroes along with tliera. That quarter 
of the world being alike free and open to emigrants from 
all parts of the United States, the demand for land was 
increased, the price of it enhanced, and this government 
has been the gainer thereby. Carry this amendment, 
and what is the result ? A violation of national honor 
and .ghted faith to those who are there, and who have 
not t t means of resistance. They are completely at our 
mercy ; and although justice is on their side, they have 
no way to obtain it, unless we grant it to them. But I am 
afraid that their appeal for their political rights is address- 
ed to a tribunal with which justice, humanity and reli- 
gion is but a name, a shadow, a phantom. We are told 
that the slave property which is now there, shall be secur- 
ed to the owners. I have shown that the' increase is to 
be taken from them. If the amendment shall be adopted, 
and the same, from necessity, acceded to by the peo- 
ple of Missouri, what will follow as the consequence? 
This -that emigration from all the slave holding states 
being substantially prohibited, the population will flow 
into that country exclusively from the north, and in the 
courss of a few years, by state regulations, their slaves 
will be taken from them. The gentlemen who advocate 
this amendment, well kno-jv the consequence that will 
follow from the restriction as now proposed. Their de- 
claration that the slave property now there is not event- 



23 

ualiy to be effected, is insidious : it cannot .deceive us, 
the nation, or gull the people of Missouri. If this were 
not the expected and looked for consequence, that mas- 
ter stroke of northern politics, to make it a non-slave- 
holding" state, would be an abortion, and fall shoi't of its 
mark. The people of Missouri have sagacity enough, if 
this amendment shall be adopted, to know upon what 
they have to depend ; that is, either resistance to the 
measure, or an abandonment ©f their country and homes, 
because they never will consent to give up and lose their 
slave property. If they choose the latter alterna- 
tive, and seek out other countries to remove to, and 
other lands for habitations, their possessions which they 
have purchased in its virgin state, at a high price, and 
with great labor rescued part of it from the forest and 
wilderness, will have to be thrown into the market. — 
That, together with the land of the government, which 
will be for sale, will greatly reduce the price, on account 
of the disproportion between the article in market and 
the demand. Those of the inhabitants of Missouri who 
will be expelled their country, by this restriction, will be 
compelled to sell their lands at whatever price they may 
be offered; the purchasers wdl be from the north ; and 
the people of that country, although famed for their out- 
ward show of religion, humanity, and sober habits, have 
never been remarkable for their Uberality, but on the 
contrary, notorious for their capacity at driving a good 
bargain : They are, in truth, exceedingly sharp-sighted, 
in moneyed matters as well as politics. There are other 
considerations, which ought to prevent the passage of the 
present proposed restriction. Injustice, as it relates to 
the slave holding states.They form, in point of numbers,one 
half of this Union. They paid their proportion towards the 
purchase of this territory. 1 would ask of this House, Mr. 
Chairman, and particularly those who advocate the oppo- 
site side of the question, if towards those states it be fair, 
honorable, and just, by the dead weight of numbers here, 
to interdict and prohibit their inhabitants from an equal 
participation in the enjoyment of the countr}' west of the 
Mississippi, the largest and fairest portion of the Ameri- 
can world? Where, I would ask, can the people of 
those states which tolerate slavery move to, if you forbid 
them, by a system of measures, from going there? The 
whole of the territories, except the Missouri, which be- 
long to the United States, have already been surrendered 
to the non-slave-holding states ; for it must not be forgot- 
ten, that where slavery is prohibited, there the slave 
owners cannot go, because they cannot give up their 
slave property. Nay, more, in a varietv of cases, even 
affection forbids a separation. It has been said, that we 



24 

can move, if we are desirous to emigrate, to the Missis- 
sippi and the Alabama ; but I would ask, how can a Ma- 
rylaiider, a Virginian, and Kentuckian, move there ? He 
and liis family have been accustomed to a colder climate. 
It is uncongenial to their constitutions. The danger of 
sickness will to them be alarming, and they never will 
attempt a removal to those states, a few rare instances ex- 
cepted. If you take from us the whole of the Missouri 
territory, we may strike at once, and g-ive up the ship. 

We are reminded, Mr. Chairman, again and again, that 
the people of the east and north cannot emigrate to 
countries where slavery is tolerated, because the sight of 
a fellow-being in bondage is so abhorrent and repugnant 
to their feelings. This is a story which will not bear tel- 
ling ; it is falsified and disproved by every day's observa- 
tion. Slavery exists in this district. Hundreds of slaves 
are seen here every day. Yet we see with what ardor, 
zeal, and pertinacity the gentlemen from the land of 
sober habits contest the rights of each other to seats on 
this floor. But for that they may perhaps have the com- 
mon apology, that it is patriotism to their country, and 
justice to their constituents ; or rather say, the per 
diem prompts them to do it. 

We are told, Mr. Chairman, by those who advocate this 
amendment, that a strong motive with them is the ine- 
quality of the representation between the slave-holding 
and the non-slave-holding states. This feature in the 
constitution was obviously a compromise, by the members 
of the convention, and is only one among a number of 
other clauses in tkat instrument which shew the great 
efforts that were made by the fathers of our country who 
framed the constitution, to reconcile the jarring and con- 
flicting interests of the several parts of the United States. 
However, we pay an equivalent for it in direct taxation. 
But I desire them to answer thisjquestion: How will that 
inequality be increased, diminished, or operated upon by 
the rejection or adoption of the present amendment ? 
If the slaves remain in the present slave holding states, 
instead of being removed, their population will be the 
same; so that their numbers will not be affected either 
by an admission into, or an exclusion from, the country 
w^estof the Mississippi, unless the policy of the gentle- 
men is to crowd them upon as small a tract of country as 
possible ; and thereby, through want of the comforts and 
necessaries of life, either to diminish their numbers or 
retard their natural increase. But the gentlemen will 
not avow that to be their policy ; for then they would 
lose all that portion of their friends who have enlisted 
under their banners from the genuine effusions of huma- 
nity. Their object cannot surely be to emancipate ; be- 



£5 

cause, in that event, the whole, instead of threq-fifths, 
would be represented on this floor. 

This last argument, like all others, from the beginning 
of this debate to the end, is unfounded and fallacious. 
Take all their arguments, examine and compare them ; 
they will be found inconsistent and contradictory ; not 
only one with another, but at open war with that specious 
policy which they give out as the moving cause to their 
present effort* : that is^ humanity and religion. These 
captivating terms, and all their arguments, are only in- 
tended to rally under their banners the religious, hu- 
mane, benevolent, and philanthropic. 

Why, I ask, all this disagreement among themselves, in 
the positions they have endeavored to maintain on this 
floor ? Why is the same gentlemen's argument inconsist- 
ent, one part with another ? Does it arise from a defe»t 
in the clearness of their perceptions, or an embarrass- 
ment in their deUvery ? I answer, no. What, then, is 
the cause of this confusion ? Nothing but this : It is, as 
I said at first, a contest for political power. It is intended 
to give to this Union a majority of non-slave-holding 
states, and that a new party shall arise, and the names of 
Federalist and Democrat, Whig and Tory, Hartford Con- 
rention man and a real patriot, shall all be consigned to 
the silent tomb of oblivion, and that slavery in the United 
States, or universal emancipation, shall be the rallying 
point and the poUtical watch word. The calculation is, 
tiien, that the North, having a majority of the non-slave- 
holding states, will give law to this nation, and Federal- 
ism, not of the honest and patriotic kind, but of that des- 
cription which wished success to Great Britain during 
the last war, shall again raise its head ; and by this grand, 
yet execrable manoeuvre, rule this once happy land t 
which God, in his mercies, forbid ! I say these are the 
objects of the prime movers, the master spirits of this 
storm, and they dare not avow them ; hence the disorder 
and confusion in their ranks, not in giving their votes, but 
in assigning their reasons for the same. 

I have but a few words more, Mr chairman, and then 
I have done. I call upon the gentlemen from both sides 
«f this House, to tell me what is to be the consequence 
if this question be not settled in some way this session ? 
I may be asked, how is that to be done ? I answer, by a 
compromise, and in no other way. Can either party be so 
vain as to expect a victory ? Behold ! and see how this 
nation is divided : eleven states agidnst eleven ; a small 
majority in this house in favor of the amendment ; a small 
one in the Senate against it, and the cabinet, perhaps, 
not unanimous. In this state of pubhc sentiment the bill 
f^ls, m4. Missouri Is not permitted to become a member 



26 

of the Union. Her claims are just and well founded, but 
we have refused to recognize them, and turned a dt:af 
ear to her petitions, from time to time ; not only that, 
but manifested a strong" disposition not even to allow her 
citizens the rig-hts of self-government, the birth-rigkt of 
all Americans. 

The flame of seventy -six may burst out. They call a 
convention, form a constitution agreeably to their own 
ideas orthe best practicable mode of obtaining happi- 
ness ; they disclaim their territorial vassalage, and set 
up for themselves. Are we to drive them to submission 
at the point of the bayonet, because, being citizens of the 
United States, they claim the high destinies of free 
born men ? If the bayonet is the policy, who is to wield 
it ? Not the southern, western, or middle states, for the 
hearts of their people are with them ; and, ten chances 
to one, if arms, the last argument of nations, are resort- 
ed to, they will assist and aid them. This dispute is like 
jio other that ever came into this house, that was ever 
before the legislative body of tiiis nation. Party spiril^ 
I know, has at times run high, but the great danger from 
this question as it relates to the safety and integrity of 
the Union, is this, that it is not the same state divided in- 
to parties ; it is not the states in the same section of the 
Union divided against each other. It is the north and east 
against the south and west. It is a great geographical 
line that separates the contending parties. And those 
^ parties, when so equally divided, shake mighty empires 
\ to their centre, and break up the foundations of the 
' great deep, that sooner or later, if not settled, will rend 
in twain this temple of liberty, from the top to the bot- 
tom. My friends reply to me, and say, how can you com- 
promise ? how can you surrender principle ? 

It strikes me, Sir, that this matter can be settled 
with great facility, if each party be so disposed, and 
neither give up any point in this question which may be 
called principle. Can it not be done by permitting Mis- 
souri to go into the Union without the restriction, and 
then draw a line from the western boundary of the pro- 
posed state of Misosuri, due west, to the Pacific f North 
of the line prohibit slavery, and south admit it ? 

The principle we contend for is, first, that Congress 
cannot demand a surrender of any sovereignty from a 
new state which is retained by the old states. In the 
proposed compromise this principle will not be violated. 
Next, we say that the faith of the nation is pledged to 
the people of that territory. Neither will this principle 
be given up, for the territory upon which the compro- 
mise, as contemplated, is intended to operate, is a wil- 
derness, no inhabitants, citizens of the United States, liV" 



27 

ing thereon. As it respects the gentlemen who are in 
favor of the present proposed restriction, it is no sacrifice 
of principle if they, finding that they cannot gain all they 
contend for, are content with partial success. I beg them 
to beware of one thing, as they love and revere this Union, 
not to push matters to extremities ; for, although they 
may have a majority on this floor, we will never submit 
at discretion. I call on them to recollect the old pro- 
verb, « beware of the desperation of a peaceable man." 
No, Mr. Chairman, sooner than be delivered over, not to 
our brethren, either in politics or affection, but a fede- 
ral party in the north, bound hand and foot, and to have 
no voice, no lot, no part, in this Union, we will burst all 
the ties and bonds that unite us together, and stasd erect 
in our own majesty, as did that mighty man of old, when 
Delilah said, " the Philistines be upon thee, Sampson." 
I do, therefore, Mr. Chairman, conjure the gentlemen 
from every part of the House, for, and on behalf of this 
Union, its integrity and indivisibility, not by party rancour- 
and animosity, to arrest it in its rapid march to a point 
of national felicity, glory, and prosperity, never known, 
either in the old or new world. Let neither side any 
longer contend for victory; for should either party suc- 
ceed, and finally triumph, the pride of victory on one 
hand, and the mortification and humiliation of defeat on 
the other, will widen the breach, and prevent a cordial 
reconciliation. Before this contest is pushed to extremi- 
ties, let us meet each other on this floor half way, and 
embrace as brothers of one great poUtical community, 
bury the tomahawk of party warfare, and smoke the pipe 
of peace. 



